Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: PA Bar Institute lawyer Jon Mirowitz spreads misinformation about PA gun laws

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Lawyer's comments are directly advserse to well know S. Ct. case law, see Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983), and the statements of Lacawanna County District Attorney. See http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum46/10891.html.

    I guess this lawyer thinks that the new order has already arrived.

    --

    http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/site...2269&rfi=6

    Gun-toting battle stays heated


    05/18/2008

    Gary Roberts sped into the parking lot of Old Country Buffet in Dickson City and rolled his white Toyota Scion up to the curb.

    His driver’s side window down, he leaned out, revealing a buzz cut, key-lime-pie colored shirt and matching tie.

    “Are you with the pros or the antis?” he asked a group of similar-looking folks outside the restaurant.

    A member of the Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association — a Web-based Second Amendment advocacy group — Mr. Roberts, of Moscow, told the other members outside Old Country Buffet there was a slight change in plans.

    The rendezvous point was changed to nearby Charlie Brown’s Steakhouse, after Old Country Buffet management posted a sign announcing firearms are prohibited on the property.

    Mr. Roberts and other members were not about to surrender their guns, no matter how hungry they were.

    This dinner meeting came after a May 9 clash between Dickson City police and a dozen or so association members who opted to dine out with their guns out.

    Although this may or may not be protected by the U.S. Constitution, two part-time police officers received complaints about armed people at the restaurant and had a responsibility to check it out.

    “Of the 37 years I’ve been in law enforcement, I’ve never seen — aside from law enforcement — anyone in our restaurants or in our malls carrying out in the open,” said Dickson City Police Chief William Stadnitski. “I don’t know why they picked Dickson City. We don’t know what these people’s intentions are.”

    What both sides seem to agree upon is that the officers escorted the armed patrons outside and asked for identification. Association member Richard Banks was briefly detained while police confiscated a concealed weapon, and police had apparently asked one of the members who started videotaping the incident to cease and desist.

    The exact details of the confrontation, however, are unclear, since association members declined to comment on the advice of an attorney, and the police report was not available in time for this article.

    As word of the confrontation spread, gun-rights activists organized and went to work telephoning and alerting the local media, typing away on message boards and sounding the drumbeat that led to Tuesday’s dinner meeting and a trip to a Dickson City Borough Council meeting afterward.

    So after Mr. Roberts and others reconnoitered on friendly turf — Charlie Brown’s corporate spokeswoman confirmed that the company does not ban firearms on its property — he stepped out of his vehicle with a gun on his hip. He was joined by fellow gun lovers wearing similar accessories.

    A Dickson City police cruiser was parked in the rear parking lot, but the patrolman stayed inside.

    Although citizens can “open carry” without any registration or permits, Philadelphia attorney Jon Mirowitz said that if a person packing in public is asked by police for identification, he or she must produce it.

    Mr. Mirowitz is a lecturer on gun laws for the Pennsylvania Bar Institute, a legal education arm of the Pennsylvania Bar Association.

    “It doesn’t necessarily have to be a driver’s license, but it has to say who they are and where they are from,” he said. “We are not allowed to be anonymous anymore.”

    In the end, the important thing was that no one got hurt, except maybe the feelings of a few gun-toting restaurant patrons.



  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Sigh...

  3. #3
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Just a "wannabe" in Mtn. Top, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,441

    Post imported post

    Someone in Jon Mirowitz's position should know better. He should be disbarred for espousing flatly, and provably, incorrect info from a position of authority.



  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,155

    Post imported post

    In Hiibel v. 6th Judicial Circuit of Nevada, the U.S. Supreme Court ruledsaid the law only requires that a suspect disclose his or her name, rather than requiring production of a driver's license or other document, and that's only if you're suspected of some criminal wrongdoing.

  5. #5
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Statkowski wrote:
    In Hiibel v. State of Nevada, the U.S. Supreme Court ruledsaid the law only requires that a suspect disclose his or her name, rather than requiring production of a driver's license or other document, and that's only if you're suspected of some criminal wrongdoing.
    And, PA has no such statute. Nevada did have such a statute. And even then, under the statute, and the limits of Hiibel, the police MUST first have reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) that crime is a afoot before a lawful demand for one's name can be made by police. As we know, under Florida v. JL and Commonwealth v. Hawkins, a mere 911 call about a man with a gun does NOT create RAS!

    Rad Hiibel sometime - the court even admits the duty tt OD wold not apply to domeone with a legit 5th amend reason to refuse to state name - e.g., a wanted bad guy! So stop and ID laws are like gun control - only restrict good folks' rights.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran Dutch Uncle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,715

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    “We are not allowed to be anonymous anymore.”

    That has to be one of the most astounding statements I've heard in recent years. So according to this brilliant legal fascist, I am breaking the law if I walk around my neighborhood without "my papers", and if discovered to be doing so I can be charged with the crime of "remaining anonymous". I guess if I get "snippy" about it, the charge could be upped to "aggravated anonymousity".

  7. #7
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Dutch Uncle wrote:
    Mike wrote:
    “We are not allowed to be anonymous anymore.”

    That has to be one of the most astounding statements I've heard in recent years. So according to this brilliant legal fascist
    Now now - apparently Jon is a writer on gun laws, is purportedly pro-gun, ran for office, carries guns, and was even arrested once for carrying a gun into a courthouse: http://www.saf.org/pub/rkba/gt-repor...eport_045.html

    PENNSYLVANIA CANDIDATE GETS GUNS BACK

    [size=JON S. MIROWITZ][/size][size=, Republican candidate for Pennsylvania’s Second District State Senate seat, ][/size][size=can resume carrying two handguns on city streets][/size][size=.][/size]

    [size=His guns had been seized by federal authorities in June after MIROWITZ was arrested by a U.S. District Court security officer for allegedly trying to sneak one of two loaded guns into the courthouse.][/size]

    [size=The case was dismissed][/size][size= by U.S. Magistrate Judge DIANE M. WELSH at the request of federal prosecutors who said there was insufficient evidence to go to trial.][/size]

    [size=MIROWITZ said he was relieved that the case had been dropped. His attorney, ARI MOLDOVSKY, had contended all along that the arrest had been "an honest mistake" on the court security officer’s part.][/size]

    [size=Once a victim of a mugging, MIROWITZ, 48, who wears a cowboy hat to keep the sun off his head, said he carries two guns for self-defense. "It’s quicker to draw a second gun than to reload."][/size]

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Claymont, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    191

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    Dutch Uncle wrote:
    Mike wrote:
    “We are not allowed to be anonymous anymore.”

    That has to be one of the most astounding statements I've heard in recent years. So according to this brilliant legal fascist
    Now now - apparently Jon is a writer on gun laws, is purportedly pro-gun, ran for office, carries guns, and was even arrested once for carrying a gun into a courthouse: http://www.saf.org/pub/rkba/gt-repor...eport_045.html


    PENNSYLVANIA CANDIDATE GETS GUNS BACK

    JON S. MIROWITZ Republican candidate for Pennsylvania’s Second District State Senate seat can resume carrying two handguns on city streets

    His guns had been seized by federal authorities in June after MIROWITZ was arrested by a U.S. District Court security officer for allegedly trying to sneak one of two loaded guns into the courthouse.

    The case was dismissed by U.S. Magistrate Judge DIANE M. WELSH at the request of federal prosecutors who said there was insufficient evidence to go to trial.]

    MIROWITZ said he was relieved that the case had been dropped. His attorney, ARI MOLDOVSKY, had contended all along that the arrest had been "an honest mistake" on the court security officer’s part.

    Once a victim of a mugging, MIROWITZ, 48, who wears a cowboy hat to keep the sun off his head, said he carries two guns for self-defense. "It’s quicker to draw a second gun than to reload."
    And this makes it doubly troubling if true. As a Laywer HE should know the law better then you and I.

    AS an advocte for the 2A giving out false information doesn't help the cause.

    But since this could be concedered free legal advice I'll take it for what it's worth. Nothing.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Lawyer politicians and wannabes are wily. Assume that he is up to something.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Claymont, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    191

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    Lawyer politicians and wannabes are wily. Assume that he is up to something.
    In DE we got something simliar when we asked the LAWYER who was representing the 2A and getting the law changed from 'may issue' to 'shall issue'.

    He basically told us that he would not even come and discuss with us the law and the RIGHT to open carry in our state.

    Looked to me like he was more interested in maintaining an income from those paying him to change the law then explain the law.

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member Skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Goochland, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    585

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    Lawyer's comments are directly advserse to well know S. Ct. case law, see Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983), and the statements of Lacawanna County District Attorney. See http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum46/10891.html.

    I guess this lawyer thinks that the new order has already arrived.



    Hmm.. well the police state can mean more profits for lawyers, no wonder he supports it. Just another little cog in the burgeoning police state.

  12. #12
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887

    Post imported post

    Methinks the OCDO admin or Super Moderator ought to make contact with this fellow.

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Skeptic wrote:
    Hmm.. well the police state can mean more profits for lawyers, no wonder he supports it. Just another little cog in the burgeoning police state.
    BAN LAWYERS!!



    There's gotta be a song in there somewhere.

    "Momma's don't let your children grow up to be lawyers."
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •